People will be voting against Obama because of what he has gotten done, not because of what he supposedly didn't get done.
The so called budgets Obama submits are routinely torpedoed unanimously by the Senate (last one was 99-0). Certainly bipartisan rejection by any measure
The problem with Obama's economy is airport ticket kiosks and ATM machines, everybody knows that.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214767
Originally posted by no1marauderUnfortunately, I don't think that was an error. The insurance companies didn't want to have to face the new regs and not get the business generated by the mandate, so I'm pretty sure they had to leave the severability clause out to get Lieberman to ditch the filibuster. He was pretty much owned by the insurance companies.
Actually it's worse then that; because of the vehement opposition of the Senate "moderates" to the public option, the Senate refused to even take up the House version. From wiki:
The Senate failed to take up debate on the House bill and instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[157] As the United States Const ...[text shortened]... willing to take though it made a mockery of past precedents regarding severability analysis.
No sign of him at either convention. I suspect that his influence will be limited as a post-office hold lobbyist.
Originally posted by KunsooThere isn't a single shred of evidence that that is true. It's exceedingly far-fetched to believe that they would purposely omit a severability clause for such a reason when an amendment could have done the same thing without imperiling the entire bill because of ANY section deemed unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, I don't think that was an error. The insurance companies didn't want to have to face the new regs and not get the business generated by the mandate, so I'm pretty sure they had to leave the severability clause out to get Lieberman to ditch the filibuster. He was pretty much owned by the insurance companies.
No sign of him at either convention. I suspect that his influence will be limited as a post-office hold lobbyist.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214767
Originally posted by no1marauderEvery law with more than five paragraphs has a severability clause. They knew there was a danger that the mandate would be overturned. It was either deliberate or an incredibly stupid mistake made by literally hundreds of lawyers who drafted and proofed it. Not buying that it was an accident.
There isn't a single shred of evidence that that is true. It's exceedingly far-fetched to believe that they would purposely omit a severability clause for such a reason when an amendment could have done the same thing without imperiling the entire bill because of ANY section deemed unconstitutional.
Originally posted by Hugh GlassJust out of curiosity, is there any sources for that story or any way to confirm that it's true? The article doesn't offer any, and the site does seem rather biased.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/6868/the-story-that-could-win-mitt-romney-the-presidency/
and now I'm off for an elk trip,, things will be the same when I get back :-)
1 edit
Originally posted by KunsooYour ignorance is noted; the first sentence claim is ridiculous. The initial Senate bill was a simple one having to do with housing tax breaks for service members; a severability clause would have been totally unnecessary and thus was not included.
Every law with more than five paragraphs has a severability clause. They knew there was a danger that the mandate would be overturned. It was either deliberate or an incredibly stupid mistake made by literally hundreds of lawyers who drafted and proofed it. Not buying that it was an accident.
"Buy" whatever you want; the evidence is convincing that the lack of a severability clause in the Senate health care bill was an oversight.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214767
Originally posted by no1marauderIf so, it was a very, very stupid one. One which hasn't been made at any other time in history. Odd that such a blatant mistake leaving out a routine boilerplate provision was left out of the most important legislation in decades. It's beyond mere malpractice. It's incredible.
Your ignorance is noted; the first sentence claim is ridiculous. The initial Senate bill was a simple one having to do with housing tax breaks for service members; a severability clause would have been totally unnecessary and thus was not included.
"Buy" whatever you want; the evidence is convincing that the lack of a severability clause in the Senate health care bill was an oversight.